From the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam to the Red Sea: An Ethiopian Expansion Plan with Covert US-Israeli Support, and Egypt Takes a Decisive Stance
Radar360 | Media
Ethiopia is steadily pursuing a dangerous expansionist path in the Horn of Africa, and today it appears to be tipping the scales toward the Red Sea in a new scheme to seize control of strategic geographical areas.
While the political and field realities reveal coordination between Addis Ababa on one side, and Washington and Tel Aviv on the other, an attempt to reshape geography and sovereignty in one of the world's most important maritime routes is unfolding before us.
After imposing a new reality in the Nile Basin by building a massive dam on the Nile River, defying international law and the interests of Egypt and Sudan, Ethiopia is now seeking to replicate the same scenario on the shores of the Red Sea.
Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed publicly asserts his country's "historical right" to a sea outlet, but those unaware of the reality see this as a political cover for a deeper expansionist project. This project is intended to constitute a major geopolitical breakthrough, opening the door to a direct US-Israeli presence in the Red Sea under the banners of "regional development" and "economic integration."
Ethiopian moves to pave the way for this scheme are evident on several fronts, both on the ground and politically. Addis Ababa has initiated intensive contacts with Israel regarding infrastructure and port projects on the Eritrean and Somali coasts, while simultaneously expanding its military and intelligence cooperation with the United States, which seeks to make the Horn of Africa part of its plans to secure maritime routes and oil supply lines.
Diplomatic sources indicate that Washington and Tel Aviv are providing technical and logistical support to the Ethiopian army in the areas of coastal surveillance and advanced communications. This appears to be a field preparation for an Ethiopian maritime power base expanding northward toward the Red Sea, linking Addis Ababa to vital maritime routes.
This development poses a direct threat to Red Sea states, particularly Egypt, Yemen, and Eritrea.
Cairo, which has waged a long struggle over the Nile waters, is now observing what appears to be an attempt to shift from controlling the Nile's headwaters to controlling the Red Sea's waterways. This would give Ethiopia additional leverage extending beyond the water domain into the maritime sphere.
Eritrea, geographically linked to Ethiopia after long wars, has lost some of its normal relations with Addis Ababa and considers any Ethiopian presence near its shores a violation of its sovereignty and a threat to its strategic position.
The American-Israeli move supporting this scheme is inseparable from the broader path of regional hegemony. Washington and Tel Aviv seek to create new balances of power that contain Arab influence and dismantle the maritime security system that Red Sea states have maintained for decades.
Today, after the failure of Western alliances to impose their military will in the Red Sea, they are now relying on Addis Ababa as an alternative regional power to serve as a front for their projects.
Through Ethiopian influence, Washington aims to establish a permanent intelligence presence in the strategic ports stretching from Assab in Eritrea to Berbera in Somalia. Intelligence reports indicate that joint coordination channels between Ethiopia and Israel have been and continue to be developed under the guise of “training and technical support.”
These moves are understood in Cairo, Sana'a, and Khartoum as part of a plan to internationalize the Red Sea and subject it to foreign control, thus emptying the concept of regional sovereignty of its meaning. Ethiopia, which justifies its actions with phrases like “historical right” and “shared development,” overlooks the fact that the Red Sea has never been an open space for landlocked states, and that international maritime law obligates states to respect the geographical boundaries and national sovereignty of coastal states.
Even Western reports have not failed to recognize this political dimension of the Ethiopian project. They indicate that Washington considers Ethiopia a “pivotal partner” in the Horn of Africa scenario and is working to enable it to access the Red Sea, transforming it into a new point of influence against the escalating resistance axis stretching from Yemen to Gaza. Through this empowerment, Washington and Tel Aviv seek to encircle the Yemeni, Egyptian, and Sudanese coasts with entities subservient to or subject to their economic and military influence.
Strategic observers confirm that this scheme is merely an extension of the “expansion through proxies” policy pursued by the United States in the Middle East and Africa, where its regional allies are assigned executive roles under the banners of “development” and “integration.” In Ethiopia's case, its geographical location and military capabilities have been leveraged to transform it into a spearhead for the project of controlling the Red Sea, just as Tel Aviv has become a tool for ensuring hegemony in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The Egyptian position has been clear and unequivocal. The leadership in Cairo has emphasized that the Red Sea is not a field for experiments by ambitious powers, and that governing this sea is the sole responsibility of the littoral states.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel-Aty officially affirmed that any attempt to involve non-littoral states in the mechanisms for managing the Red Sea constitutes a violation of international norms and an infringement on national sovereignty. In a parallel development, Cairo and Eritrea announced the strengthening of their political and military coordination to counter Ethiopian moves, a step that serves as a direct message to Washington and Tel Aviv: the region will not allow its maps to be redrawn under the banner of "regional integration."
Amidst escalating international competition for ports and supply lines, observers believe that the Ethiopian plan, supported by the US and Israel, poses an existential threat to both Arab and African national security.
Talking about the “right of access to the sea” is merely a prelude to broader interventions that could extend deep into the Red Sea and its strategic waterways stretching from the Suez Canal to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
If these moves continue on their current trajectory, they will open the door to renewed chaos in the region and transform the Red Sea into an open arena of conflict between foreign powers hiding behind “development” projects.
Confronting this scheme requires a unified stance from the Red Sea states, which understand that remaining silent on Ethiopian expansion means surrendering sovereignty and opening the door to new intelligence penetrations in the heart of the region.
Hence, the Egyptian and Eritrean positions are understood as a defense of the sovereignty of the entire region and a decisive message that the Red Sea is not an arena for American hegemony nor a platform for Zionist expansion, and that Ethiopian ambitions, however cloaked in diplomatic rhetoric, will be met with firm resistance from all countries that understand that this sea is not merely a waterway, but a vital artery for regional sovereignty and dignity.
